Lian4319 summons help

[Lian4319]

I used my friend's oyster 18 plus student card (I topped up the money myself to a zone 1-3 weekly card, the card allows 1/3 off on traveling with TFL, but you need to register with TFL first to get the card when you study in London) in July at Hammersmith, I did touch in and they stopped me in the gate, I had that just for a day. I am a PhD student myself and I have my own student card now registered after summer holiday. ( I was in my study break and registered with college after summer)

Now got a summons from London Underground yesterday. The travel cash fare is £4.5 (with oyster card is cheaper from Hammersimth to Holloway Road), then another £130 court cost.
Contrary to S5(3)(a) of the Regulation of Railway Act 1889 as amended by Section 84(2) of the Transport Act 1962 and Section 18 of the British Act 1970.

I want to know how can I avoid the get criminal record as I am on my last year of PhD, do not want my life ruined by this stupid mistake.

Any suggestion?

The guy-a London Underground Revenue Control Inspector caught me (took my details) said it as long as I reply a letter sent to me by TFL (which was a month ago) it would be just £70 fine, no criminal record. But I cannot prove he said this to me it was only his words at the scene. But I cannot approve what he said this to me in court if he does not agree.

I know if I plead guilty then that will be criminal record. If i say no guilty then that will more serious consequence and fine after court if I lose. The court will be on 4th December. What can I do? please help.

I have just called the prosecution office with the case ref number. Tried to express my ashamed action and willing for settlement out of court but the guy had no sympathy. He said there is no option but court.

What can I do? Plead guilty or try to fight? I will still send an apology letter to their office regardless. Anyone have any experience like this please help. I am desperate for help. Want to know what the best option I can do now to avoid the criminal record? Is it a good idea to visit their office in person to apology for out of court settlement? ANYONE CAN SUGGEST A GOOD CRIMINAL DEFENSE SOLICITOR IN LONDON FOR SUCH A CASE?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I find it very difficult to understand your post. I doubt any of us can answer your question without a clearer understanding.

What Offence does the summons state you are accused of?
What Company is prosecuting you?
Does the Summons include the amount of costs the Company will seek to recover from you?
What "student card" were you using, issued by which Company?
How far away is the date of the Court hearing?

 

[Lian4319]

I just edited the text.

 

[Mojo]

Going by the fare it sounds to me like you were stopped by a London Underground Revenue Control Inspector and received a letter from London Underground prosecutions, not TfL prosecutions (or TFL).

It is extremely rare that London Underground accept an out of court settlement. [TfL are more likely to accept these, but they only deal with bus cases.] Often they will offer to you to pay £70 + fare towards costs, however it sounds like it is being treated as more serious, so is going to court.

It is not however unknown for LU to accept a settlement, so you could always make them an offer, by telephone.

 

[Lian4319]

It is a London Underground Revenue Control Inspector

 

[island]

What student card are you talking about? A 16-25 Railcard? An Oyster Photocard?

 

[Lian4319]

18 Plus oyster student card with a photo on it

 

[Tetchytyke]

It sounds like it will be the 18+ student Oyster, which you get a photocard for. For this discount you have to register with TfL and they confirm your attendance directly with the University/College.

 

[maniacmartin]

The 18+ does not have any discount on Pay as you go fares. It has:
"Save 30 per cent against the price of adult rate Travelcards and Bus & Tram Passes"


In which case, if you were travelling wholly outside of the area of any Travelcard your friend had, you did not avoid any fare due. If you travelled within the area of any travelcard that your friend bought, then you may be seen as attempting to wholy evade the fare, as the card would not have deducted any pay as you Go balance

 

[furlong]

Please also answer this question:

What Offence does the summons state you are accused of?

And also say whether or not you touched in with that oyster card when you began your journey - at Hammersmith?

And whether or not the oyster card already contained any travelcards that would have covered part of the journey.

 

[CyrusWuff]

The 18+ does not have any discount on Pay as you go fares. It has:
"Save 30 per cent against the price of adult rate Travelcards and Bus & Tram Passes"

In which case, if you were travelling wholly outside of the area of any Travelcard your friend had, you did not avoid any fare due. If you travelled within the area of any travelcard that your friend bought, then you may be seen as attempting to wholy evade the fare, as the card would not have deducted any pay as you Go balance

Whilst an 18+ Oyster photocard doesn't discount individual journeys, they're not transferable, and neither is any other Oyster photocard or a card with a concession loaded onto it, per Condition 6.4 of the TfL Conditions of Carriage.

 

[Mojo]

Whilst an 18+ Oyster photocard doesn't discount individual journeys, they're not transferable, and neither is any other Oyster photocard or a card with a concession loaded onto it, per Condition 6.4 of the TfL Conditions of Carriage.

However use of someone else's Oyster Photocard for Pay As You Go journeys (unless there was, say, a Railcard discount on it too) would not constitute an offence under s5.3(a) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889.

 

[Lian4319]

I topped up and became a weekly travel card zone 1-3. What source do you want me to provide? I tried to explain as clear as I can.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

What can I do? Plea guilty or try to fight? I will still send an apology letter to their office regardless. Anyone have any experience like this please help. I am desperate for help. Want to know what the best option I can do now to avoid the criminal record?

Yes, we have plenty of experience of cases like this.

But you still have to tell us what Offence you are being accused of (it will be written on the Summons).
It would also be helpful to know what you told the Inspector when you were stopped, as that statement is a vital part of the evidence a against you.

 

[Lian4319]

Contrary to S5(3) of the Regulation of Railway Act 1889 as amended by Section 84(2) of the Transport Act 1962 and Section 18 of the British Act 1970.

I said it was a friend gave the card to me and admitted that I should have not used it to save money. I might can argue a I am waiting to get my own card after summer and thought as I am a student I might be ok to use his? It was a mistake but not intention.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

If you are telling us that your friend's Oyster card held a z 1-3 Travelcard on it when you used it, and that some of the journey you made was in those zones, then it appears to me that you had not complied with the Conditions of use of the card.
Also, you seem to have admitted that you were attempting to avoid paying the full fare that was due.

But for you to have committed the Section 5.3(b) offence, you must have not paid the fare due:

If any person—
(a) Travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof
. . .
he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, or, in the case of a second or subsequent offence, either to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, or in the discretion of the court to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three months.

If you were given the 30% discount when you 'touched in' (and your friend will be able to log in to the account to read its payment history) then you didn't pay the due fare and therefore, the Offence was committed.

But if the full fare was deducted from the Card, then I'm not persuaded that the Offence was committed.

We'll know for sure when you answer the remaining questions about the card and the journey.
I'll assume that the Offence was committed.

If you instruct a local solicitor who specialises in Crimninal Defence work, then they will be able to tell the Court about your financial circumstances and any other circumstances in mitigation - this might reduce the amount of a Fine or even get a Discharge instead of a Guilty verdict. I'm sure they will also be able to speak to the Prosecution before the Court hearing and attempt to negotiate a settlement before going to Court, though they will have to convince the Company that the Court will give you a Discharge instead of a fine, and that a settlement will be better than a Discharge.
I expect that you will have to pay the solicitor a few hundred pounds for this work.

I don't think that any PhD student should expect us to believe that they wouldn't be able to understand the conditions of using someone else's payment card. And I don't think that any PhD student should expect us to believe that they'd think a card was valid before it was registered.
So don't keep repeating these excuses.

 

[martybabes]

Contrary to S5(3) of the Regulation of Railway Act 1889 as amended by Section 84(2) of the Transport Act 1962 and Section 18 of the British Act 1970.

I said it was a friend gave the card to me and admitted that I should have not used it to save money. I might can argue a I am waiting to get my own card after summer and thought as I am a student I might be ok to use his? It was a mistake but not intention.

If you had used your friend's card instead of your own, that, to my mind, would negative the criminal intent. Using his when you hadn't even got a card makes it difficult to argue against there being an intent. The mistake was to use his when you hadn't got one.

 

[maniacmartin]

It was a mistake but not intention.

You picked up an Oyster card with someone else's photo that's a different colour by mistake, and then mistakenly used a machine to load a 30% reduced Travelcard on it, and then travelled on it? There is no way TfL or a court will believe that it is a mistake.

If you were given the 30% discount when you 'touched in'[...]

The 18+ Oyster gives a discount on Travelcards only. The discount is applied at the time of purchasing the Travelcard. Lian4319, I presume you were travelling at least partially within the zones of the Travelcard you bought?

I might can argue a I am waiting to get my own card after summer and thought as I am a student I might be ok to use his?

I can see your logic here - you were entitled to the discount but you had never got round to applying for your own card. Unfortunately I don't see you being too successful with this defence, as you still broke the terms and conditions and you also avoided the nominal issuing fee for an Oyster of your own. To let you off here would be the equivalent of letting off Railcard holders who leave their railcards at home.

 

[bb21]

If I get your story straight, you started your journey at Hammersmith, and went to Holloway Road, and used an 18-plus discounted Zones 1-3 Travelcard which you are not entitled to?

If that is correct, then you would have avoided paying the correct fare as the journey would be covered by the Travelcard had you not been caught, so your intent to avoid paying the correct fare can most likely be established in a court of law with little effort, leading to a criminal record since you are being prosecuted under Section 5(3a) of the RoRA. The fact that you will be a student yourself is irrelevant. You are not allowed to use another person's card. In addition if I understand your account correctly, you were not entitled to discounted fares in July as you had not registered at your university at that time.

I would recommend that you try your best at settling this out-of-court. If LU are hellbent on making an example of you (not much you can do if that is the case), then a criminal record is almost guaranteed imo. No chance of fighting this successfully as I see it. In this case, if you are an overseas student, you will find it almost impossible to obtain any extension to your student visa.

 

[Lian4319]

Contrary to S5(3)(a) of the Regulation of Railway Act 1889 as amended by Section 84(2) of the Transport Act 1962 and Section 18 of the British Act 1970.

Sorry for the mess up Dave it says above. Any fighting chance this time.

 

[redbutton]

What I gather from the edited original post and subsequent discussion is that he loaded a Z1-3 Travelcard onto his friend's 18+ student photocard in order to get the 30% discount. Then, he touched in at Hammersmith, which shows intent to travel without paying the full fare. That would be why they are prosecuting under RoRA.

Lian: I'm assuming you're an international student. Since there are likely to be immigration problems that would result from anything you do from this point forward, you really should speak with a solicitor before you respond to the summons.

My layman's understanding is that even an out-of-court settlement could affect a visa since the Home Office can use it as evidence of "bad character", so it's extremely important to make sure you handle this properly, and a solicitor's advice will help you do that.

 

[bb21]

Lian: I'm assuming you're an international student. Since there are likely to be immigration problems that would result from anything you do from this point forward, you really should speak with a solicitor before you respond to the summons.

I agree completely with this if the OP is an international student.

My layman's understanding is that even an out-of-court settlement could affect a visa since the Home Office can use it as evidence of "bad character", so it's extremely important to make sure you handle this properly, and a solicitor's advice will help you do that.

I don't think an out-of-court settlement would have any effect, as this would not be logged anywhere UKBA can see. That said, again, I would urge the OP to seek legal advice as mentioned already.

Contrary to S5(3)(a) of the Regulation of Railway Act 1889 as amended by Section 84(2) of the Transport Act 1962 and Section 18 of the British Act 1970.

Sorry for the mess up Dave it says above. Any fighting chance this time.

I have already mentioned Section 5(3a) in my analysis, and my understanding is that your chance of a successful challenge is very low, if the TOC do their homework properly before going to the court.

"Intent" is not about what your intentions were at the time, it is about how your actions (and intention at the time) are interpreted by the court.

If you have more questions, don't add them into your original post, as people are unlikely to read it. Just make more posts below.

 

[Lian4319]

Want to know any good solicitors in London for this? Any time limited to reply the summons? (I will read through the document again). I have permanent residency here, immigration concern is second but criminal record.

 

[martybabes]

"Intent" is not about what your intentions were at the time, it is about how your actions (and intention at the time) are interpreted by the court.

I'm not sure I agree with this.

Intent, surely, is the mens rea at the time of the actus reus. This is for the prosecution to prove.
The intentional - the mens rea - use of someone else's card - the actus reus - while not having one yourself demonstrates this. The intention was to use another person's card, not by accident or mistake but deliberately so.

 

[bb21]

I'm not sure I agree with this.

Hmm, yes. Seems like I was typing faster than I was thinking.

I meant to say that it was not what the defendant claims his intentions were that is important, but rather how the court interprets his intentions. Teaches me to proofread the post before going public.